22 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are twisting the points I make here.
Not quite sure what you mean. When I consider your view in terms of plausibility, I of course take into account everything that I think is relevant to your view as I understand it. I understand that your view invokes God in a material way, and I preserve that. I would say, with or without God, any view that entails that the earth/universe are only seve ...[text shortened]... , then I guess we wouldn't be able to hold knowlege on much of anything.)
Please if you are going to accuse me of something do it with my words.
I at all times say what I believe is a matter of faith when I say this is what
I believe about the age of the earth with respect to how old I think it is.
What I argue with are the reasons for what you use to say one thing is
plausible and another is not. Like the coming up with age when looking
at rates and distances, one must assume a great deal to suggest such
a time, and not only that only assume those things that promote the
belief you are backing are true and those things you are not are false.
Kelly
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I argue with are the reasons for what you use to say one thing is
You are twisting the points I make here.
Please if you are going to accuse me of something do it with my words.
I at all times say what I believe is a matter of faith when I say this is what
I believe about the age of the earth with respect to how old I think it is.
What I argue with are the reasons for what you use to say one thing is
plausible and an ...[text shortened]... that promote the
belief you are backing are true and those things you are not are false.
Kelly
plausible and another is not.
No you don't. You do not argue evidential reasons or plausibility considerations on this topic, at least not directly and never on their actual merits. To the contrary, it seems that what you actually do here is just exude a vicious skepticism toward the idea that one could have reasons for his belief that actually confer justificatory status unto knowledge. You basically just go around shrieking that it's all just a "matter of faith".
And please riddle me this: what hypothetical conditions would you accept as disconfirmation conditions for the idea that God created the earth/universe relatively recently?
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know that game as "Telephone".
Finally, I’m not aware of the game ‘Alligator’,
Played by young children sitting in a circle, it begins with one person whispering a word or sentence into the ear of the child next to him... who in turn whispers what he heard into the ear of the next child, and so on and so forth. The very last child sitting on the opposite side of the child who started ...[text shortened]... or is found in how far removed the final message inevitably becomes from the original utterance.
22 Apr 10
2 edits
Transmission of the statements led to distortions. That is the theory.
For instance, Jesus originally just said to Peter "Peter, pass me a piece of fish."
But it got copied and copied again and again down through the centries. And finally it came out like this:
"I am the resurrection and the life." .
Its those typos passed on and on that are at fault for our present day understanding of the words of Jesus.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillI'm sorry. I thought God just didn't understand correct English grammar. I see now it was the mistranslations that inflicted the poor grammar.
Transmission of the statements led to distortions. That is the theory.
For instance, Jesus originally just said to Peter [b]"Peter, pass me a piece of fish."
But it got copied and copied again and again down through the centries. And finally it came out like this:
"I am the resurrection and the life." .
Its those typos passed on and on that are at fault for our present day understanding of the words of Jesus.[/b]
23 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloA vicious skepticism, please!
[b]What I argue with are the reasons for what you use to say one thing is
plausible and another is not.
No you don't. You do not argue evidential reasons or plausibility considerations on this topic, at least not directly and never on their actual merits. To the contrary, it seems that what you actually do here is just exude a vicious skepticism onfirmation conditions for the idea that God created the earth/universe relatively recently?[/b]
How so by not buying into your beliefs on matters where we must accept
things as true that may not be?
I do believe the vast majority of our lives are matters of faith, from walking
across a park to directing my trust that when someone says they are going
to do something they will follow through with their word.
For your hypothetical, I'd have to be shown all of this could come from
nothing.
Kelly
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillFor what it's worth (and I'm sure that's not very much from a sceptic to a full believer) I doubt that typos played much of a part in the process. It does seem likely however that an awful lot of selective editing has taken place in order to take a faith which was clearly originally antithetical to the rule of law and come up with one which lends itself so readily to hierarchical structuring and population management.
Transmission of the statements led to distortions. That is the theory.
For instance, Jesus originally just said to Peter [b]"Peter, pass me a piece of fish."
But it got copied and copied again and again down through the centries. And finally it came out like this:
"I am the resurrection and the life." .
Its those typos passed on and on that are at fault for our present day understanding of the words of Jesus.[/b]
25 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayA vicious skepticism, please!
A vicious skepticism, please!
How so by not buying into your beliefs on matters where we must accept
things as true that may not be?
I do believe the vast majority of our lives are matters of faith, from walking
across a park to directing my trust that when someone says they are going
to do something they will follow through with their word.
For your hypothetical, I'd have to be shown all of this could come from
nothing.
Kelly
How so by not buying into your beliefs on matters where we must accept
things as true that may not be?
No, by continually declaiming in a shamelessly inconsistent way on the possibility of knowledge.
For your hypothetical, I'd have to be shown all of this could come from
nothing.
Kelly
I don't really understand that. Why should that constitute disconfirmation conditions for the hypothesis in question? If someone were to show that "all of this could come from nothing", that would presumably show that your God is ultimately explanatorily unnecessary for bringing about "all of this". But it would also presumably show that anything else one could think up is also ultimately explanatorily unnecessary. Why should you be obligated to give up your belief in a young earth/universe created by God if someone were to show that "all of this could come from nothing"? Just because it is broadly possible that my painting on the wall could have been brought about in a way that didn't involve me (or could be replicated more or less exactly in ways that don't involve me; or could even be brought about by nothing, whatever that even means) wouldn't mean that I didn't paint it recently. I'm still not so sure that your hypothesis is subject to falsification.
At any rate, let's suppose you are correct that if one were to show, to your own satisfaction, that "all of this could come from nothing", you would abandon your belief in a young earth/universe created by God. Well, they would still have to show it to your own satisfaction, wouldn't they? How do you think something like that is ever going to happen when all you do at the offerings of others is shriek that it is nothing more than their opinion and that it is all just faith anyway? Let's face it: this topic is a little too near and dear to your heart for you to engage it in any responsible or objective fashion. (And I am not just saying this only applies to you: it could be that many, theists and atheists alike, are not able to approach this topic in responsible fashion.)
The problem with your skeptical attitude is that it has simply never been coherent. You want to say that it is all just a matter of faith and no one could hold any actual knowledge on such matters because these are "matters where we must accept things as true that may not be". First of all, no one is forcing you to accept some positive view on the matter as though you "must accept" something: if you don't think anyone can hold knowledge or justified belief on the topic, how about just reserving judgment? Secondly, and more importantly, sorry to break this to you: you "accept things as true that may not be" all the time and in even the most mundane of circumstances. I don't hear you shrieking in the other areas of your life that you cannot hold knowledge on anything. And I am not talking about "walking across a park" (why ever that would be a matter of faith) or "directing your trust" in someone's word. I am talking about even your most basic and closely held beliefs: virtually all of them "may not be true". After all, consider virtually any one of your beliefs that you otherwise don't question: your basis for belief is not sufficient to guarantee with absolute certainty the truth of that belief. You often point to our inability to "prove" claims on this matter. Well, you really cannot "prove", in the sense you employ the word, claims in general or much of anything outside of maybe formal logic. So, either spiral into a consistent attitude of radical doubt where you hold virtually no knowledge on anything because there is always some possibility that virtually any of your beliefs may not be true; or you'll need to realize that this type of mere possibility of error is in principle not sufficient to warrant such skepticism toward the possibility of knowledge.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"...by continually declaiming in a shamelesly inconsistent way..." really I do
[b]A vicious skepticism, please!
How so by not buying into your beliefs on matters where we must accept
things as true that may not be?
No, by continually declaiming in a shamelessly inconsistent way on the possibility of knowledge.
For your hypothetical, I'd have to be shown all of this could come from
nothing.
Kelly
I don't reall ...[text shortened]... rant such skepticism toward the possibility of knowledge.[/b]
believe I have been very consistent.
If I believe something is true due to some reading I either made or was
given, then my beliefs will be based upon those readings. I've been very
consistent about this. If you are going to tell me age by looking at just
distance and rates, I'm telling you the only thing you have there is just
the distance and rates, what you are lacking is how long those conditions
have been present, I've been very consistent about that too. Where you
think I've been inconsistent you'll have be a little more specific if possible.
When looking at the beginning and all that has followed after, depending
on how it all started can you really grasp the truth about what we see
around us now. I don't see anything coming from nothing, so I'm left with
the eternal stepping in and creating this universe. If you can show all things
from nothing you will be speaking to the very core of my doubt about all of
these things. Since the beginning either does or does not require something
outside of our known universe, we have various types of completely
different world views on all things and accept that there was ("no cause it
always was", or "nothing caused it" ) verses those that believe there was a
cause outside of our universe. With these beliefs in play how we are to be
able to look at thing and draw our conclusions becomes important, just saying
God did it cuts out our gathering data on age with distances and rates, while
saying it started with whatever caused the Big Bang allows for it. You start
with a leap of faith as soon as you pick one.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"Secondly, and more importantly, sorry to break this to you: you "accept things as true that may not be" all the time and in even the most mundane of circumstances. I don't hear you shrieking in the other areas of your life that you cannot hold knowledge on anything. And I am not talking about "walking across a park" (why ever that would be a matter of faith) or "directing your trust" in someone's word. "
[b]A vicious skepticism, please!
How so by not buying into your beliefs on matters where we must accept
things as true that may not be?
No, by continually declaiming in a shamelessly inconsistent way on the possibility of knowledge.
For your hypothetical, I'd have to be shown all of this could come from
nothing.
Kelly
I don't reall ...[text shortened]... rant such skepticism toward the possibility of knowledge.[/b]
You don't hear me shrieking about anything in any area of my life including
the discussions here about what we know and think we know.
Kelly
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWhere you
"...by continually declaiming in a shamelesly inconsistent way..." really I do
believe I have been very consistent.
If I believe something is true due to some reading I either made or was
given, then my beliefs will be based upon those readings. I've been very
consistent about this. If you are going to tell me age by looking at just
distance and rate ...[text shortened]... he Big Bang allows for it. You start
with a leap of faith as soon as you pick one.
think I've been inconsistent you'll have be a little more specific if possible.
Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons that should equally apply to virtually any inquiry or belief-building process. Yet your skepticism curiously does not extend to virtually any inquiry or belief-building process: rather, you only reserve such skepticism for inquiries that bear on your cherished God beliefs, such as this matter. Essentially, you hold us here in a discussion of this type to infallibilist demands on knowledge, but deny elsewhere that failure to meet such infallibility criterion precludes knowledge. You are all of a sudden radically skeptical with respect to abductive reasoning in a discussion such as this, yet employ it unquestioningly in virtually all other areas of your life. Your inconsistency on this issue is extremely well-documented for anyone who wishes to peruse your posting history in this forum. For example, it was exposed in the thread link I provided earlier. And your selective application of radical skepticism toward any view that bears in a countervailing manner to your cherished God explanation is a very poor substitute for meaningful debate.
I don't see anything coming from nothing, so I'm left with
the eternal stepping in and creating this universe.
So either the earth/universe "came from nothing" or KellyJay's God created the earth/universe relatively recently? Isn't that just a false dichotomy?
Since the beginning either does or does not require something
outside of our known universe, we have various types of completely
different world views on all things and accept that there was ("no cause it
always was", or "nothing caused it" ) verses those that believe there was a
cause outside of our universe. With these beliefs in play how we are to be
able to look at thing and draw our conclusions becomes important, just saying
God did it cuts out our gathering data on age with distances and rates, while
saying it started with whatever caused the Big Bang allows for it. You start
with a leap of faith as soon as you pick one.
You seem to want to use 'faith' to describe anything, just willy-nilly. You even said that "walking across a park" is a matter of faith, whatever exactly that means. So, because you seem to stretch the word to fit whatever you want, willy-nilly, I really don't have much clue what you actually mean by the word. Let's stick with the issue of whether or not belief is justified. What exactly in here suggests that one cannot hold justified belief on such topics?
And I disagree that just because someone like you can enter the fray and say that Goddunnit, that somehow means that it is all just "faith" for everyone and now nobody can hold knowledge or justified belief. Yeah, okay, you say "Goddunnit" and now it is just a matter of faith how people look at and interpret whole bodies of scientific data? Get real. As a I mentioned before, a much more reasonable resolution is that you just get ignored on the grounds that you have offered nothing to the competing explanations pool that is subject to falsification.
27 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons that should equally apply to virtually any inquiry or belief-building process. Yet your skepticism curiously does not extend to virtually any inquiry or belief-building process: rather, you only reserve such skepticism for inquiries that bear on your cherished God beliefs, such as this matter."
[b]Where you
think I've been inconsistent you'll have be a little more specific if possible.
Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons t ...[text shortened]... thing to the competing explanations pool that is subject to falsification.[/b]
You only see the skepticism on topics I feel any desire to talk about, so
exactly how do you know I only hold such skepticism on just topics that
have something to do with God. To me this shows your true colors now as
once again, instead of dealing with topics you have made me the topic
instead. I'll get to your other points later.
Kelly
27 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's not my intention to make you the topic, per se. From what I have gathered from my experiences on here, you seem like a really terrific guy. I was intending to make your debating tactics and positional inconsistencies, which I find irresponsible, the topic. I hope the only thing it says about my "true colors" is that I value good debate and fair inquiry into descriptive matters, such as the age of the earth/universe. I fear we have been here several times before, and I am telling you nothing new.
"Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons that should equally apply to virtually any inquiry or belief-building process. Yet your skepticism curiou with topics you have made me the topic
instead. I'll get to your other points later.
Kelly
28 Apr 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess when you start on me about my motives and style I assumed you were
It's not my intention to make you the topic, per se. From what I have gathered from my experiences on here, you seem like a really terrific guy. I was intending to make your debating tactics and positional inconsistencies, which I find irresponsible, the topic. I hope the only thing it says about my "true colors" is that I value good debate and ...[text shortened]... h/universe. I fear we have been here several times before, and I am telling you nothing new.
talking about me.
Kelly